Can you take 10 on climb?


Rules Questions

351 to 400 of 405 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Quintain wrote:

Here's an interesting feat I found:

[url=http://www.archivesofnethys.com/FeatDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Sure%20Grasp]Sure Grasp[/url

Quote:

Source Ultimate Combat pg. 1 (Amazon)

Your quick reflexes and skill at climbing keep you from falling to your doom.

Prerequisites: Climb 1 rank.

Benefit: Roll twice while climbing or when making a Reflex save to avoid falling, and take the higher result.

How does this little gem alter our probabilities of making our 300' successful climb?

Yeah, you're still vastly better off not investing a single skill point in climb and picking up some boots of spider climbing. Half the price of a feat, zero chance of falling (no matter what) and you can enjoy your full dex to AC while double moving up a perfectly flat surface.


How many conditions are you going to need to add for me (or others) to not be able to shut down your arguments? :)

First it was just a cliff.

Then it was a cliff with a BBEG hiding something there.

Next was a cliff, something hidden, and the BBEG is present.

Added next was the BBEG was also invisible.

Now he has minions around to.

Oh, by the way, if he has minions around, and the minions are actively attacking the players, how many of them get to take 10? None of them.

Or are all the minions invisible too? Which then, at which point should they reveal themselves? Probably at the worst possible time for the players.

All that aside, if the BBEG has access to long lasting invisibility magic, the players probably have access to levitate, spider climb, fly, and maybe even teleport making the entire exercise a mute point.

You talked earlier about taking a holistic view of things. Which is good, you should do that. The problem I'm seeing is that given the arguments you are putting forth, you haven't actually taken a step back and looked at the whole of it.

Could climbing be made more interesting? Yes. But not by taking away take 10. That doesn't really change anything except make a character put a few more skill points into the skill to guarantee success.

If you want climbing more interesting you either need to rewrite the skill entirely, or take other steps, some of which have been mentioned in this thread. Like not all parts of the cliff are the same DC. Or add high winds to prevent taking 10. Or add giants tossing rocks down off the cliff preventing take 10. Or placing the entire cliff in a massive anti-magic shell so it will take the party several days of travel to get out of it so the wizards can't just magic the party up.


If that's a better investment in your estmation, at least it's an investment.

What it is not is hand-waving.


Quintain wrote:
Quote:


Why would I take craft magic item feats if I can fail a basic roll and waste tens of thousands of gold on an item my character should in theory have no problem creating?
Why would you try anything where you have any chance of failing...is basically your question. Or are you only willing to risk failure when it's really important to you.

Why should I be punished with an unreasonably high risk of failure when the game itself assumes explicitly states the task can be solved easily? The game's DCs are designed with the T10 and T20 rules in mind.

Let's say every time you tie your shoes you have a 5% chance of accidentally strangling yourself. Would you keep wearing shoes with laces, or would you switch to velcro? This is what will happen with skills that rely on T10. Players will realize that the upside is not worth the sheer randomness and find alternate ways to cope.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Finally


Quintain wrote:

If that's a better investment in your estmation, at least it's an investment.

What it is not is hand-waving.

Is allocation of skill points into the climb skill not an investment?

It's not monetary, sure, but do you make monks spend money to be able to attack people with their free fists? :)

Do you make clerics pay money to get their spells back each day? In these cases the players 'invested' in a class to get certain abilities.


Conman the Bardbarian wrote:
Finally

Yeah, I figured I'd throw you a bone. You're welcome :)

Edit: And on that happy note, I'm off to bed. Have a good evening. :)


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Quintain wrote:

Question for you probability types: If you take a -5 on your checks (effectively increasing your DC by 5), but you have to only make 50% of the checks in question, do you have a greater probability of succeeding given a starting DC 20 dungeon wall?

It depends, but only in extreme cases. Typically you will have a much better chance slow but steady. It's because the squaring doesn't hurt us nearly as much as the minus 5. Overly drawn out explanation below.

Let's start with a few assumptions. You have a chance of falling to begin with (otherwise it's either 0% chance of failure or no question, either way it's not interesting). You are considered to have failed the first time you miss by 5 or more (this one changes it slightly since there are some walls that become no risk on the double speed like a 20 ft wall with 40 ft base speed).

If n is the number of checks you need to climb the wall at double speed and m is the number of values that are a success at double speed, the probability of making it up the wall without failing by 5 (and falling off) is (m/16)^n. The 16 comes from the 20 results minus the 4 that are failures by less than 5. The probability of making it up at normal speed is ((m+5)/16)^2n. That could differ by one check, but in that case we'll climb the last bit at half speed.

A little simple algebra tells us the question is when ((m+5)/16)^2 is larger than m/16, or when their difference is positive. ((m+5)/16)^2-(m/16) > 0, multiply by 16 and expand and we get (m^2+10+25)/16 - m > 0. Multiply by 16 again and combine terms and get m^2-6m+25 > 0. The zeroes of that polynomial are at m=3+4i and m=3-4i. So it never crosses zero and hence is always positive (it's continuous and you can verify that it's positive with a single test point - I suggest m=0 for its easy computation).

Apologies for the longwindedness. Years teaching calculus has taught me that being very explicit about these things pays dividends in clarity.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sarcasm Elemental wrote:
Quintain wrote:
Tell me, when invisible, do you always attack, and thus break invisibility?
Not sure, but the point of this discussion is remaining invisible.

Is this it?


Quintain wrote:

Question for you probability types: If you take a -5 on your checks (effectively increasing your DC by 5), but you have to only make 50% of the checks in question, do you have a greater probability of succeeding given a starting DC 20 dungeon wall?

Essentially rerolling every failure, but with a -5 on both rolls?

Not enough information to answer. It depends on your Climb bonus as well as the base DC.

For example, if I had a Climb skill of 15, then I couldn't fall even on a 1 normally, but would fall if I rolled 5 or less twice.

If I had a climb of 14, then I'd only fall on a 1. 5% per roll.
Or I could fall on 2 6s. So 6/20 *6/20 = 9%. Still worse.

I take that back. I think it's always worse.

Climb skill 10 = Fall on a 5. 25% chance.
or fall on 2 10s = 10/20 *10/20. Also a 25% chance

Climb skill 5 = Fall on a 10 50% chance
or fall on 2 15s = 15/20*15/20 56%

Beyond that you can't climb.

Alternately, if you meant just half the total number of rolls - ie you can climb twice as fast, you're still screwed.

If it would have take 10 rolls with a climb of 14 = .95^10 = 60%, then it would take 5 rolls needing a 7 to not fall - .7^5 = 17%


Quintain wrote:
It requires an investment to succeed vs hand-waving. And a dependency on equipment can be exploited by enemies. Hand-waving cannot.

So, the guy that invested rare skill points in order to be able to succeed climbing a DC 20 wall routinely isn't something of importance ?

That guy invested probably something like 5 skill ranks and bought a climbing kit but shouldn't succeed not because the rule says so, but because you don't like it.

I wouldn't play with a GM like that. My goal when I play is having fun, not be with a GM that is having fun on his own making his players miserable.

Sorry, but that's the only way I can justify your posts here : you find that taking 10 is "the easy way", while it's just a way to handwave things that are of no consequences to the character to focus on really important things.

To take your example : the important thing is not the climbing, but how the characters got to that cliff (investigation, ...) and what does it means for the story. Not the climb check. Because nobody else in that topic cares about the climb check.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Quintain wrote:

Here's an interesting feat I found:

[url=http://www.archivesofnethys.com/FeatDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Sure%20Grasp]Sure Grasp[/url

Quote:

Source Ultimate Combat pg. 1 (Amazon)

Your quick reflexes and skill at climbing keep you from falling to your doom.

Prerequisites: Climb 1 rank.

Benefit: Roll twice while climbing or when making a Reflex save to avoid falling, and take the higher result.

How does this little gem alter our probabilities of making our 300' successful climb?

Significantly improves our odds. Without this feat, there are 20 possible results. a of them cause falling, b of them (ok it's 4 for the interesting skill levels computationally) that make no progress, and c that make progress. The probability of success is (c/(a+c))^n where n is the number of successes we need.

With this feat, there are 400 results. It collapses to (a+b+c)^2=a^2+b^2+c^2+2ab+2ac+2bc. Of these results the a^2 are falls (both dice are falls), the b^2 and 2ab are non - progress (b^2 are the results where both are no progress and the 2ab are when there's a fall and a no progress), and the rest make progress. So our probability of success is ((c^2+2ac+2bc)/(a^2+c^2+2ac+2bc))^n. If you're likely to fail each time, it roughly doubles your odds for each check you need. If you're likely to pass each time it makes it drastically better.

In the example before where you fall only on a 1, a=1, b=4, and c=15. That means we have (375/376)^n instead of (15/16)^n. In our example before that had about a 7.5% chance of success, we instead have an 89.9% chance of success. In order to get to a 50% chance of falling, you would need to make 260 checks and climb a nearly 2000 foot wall.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
thejeff wrote:
Quintain wrote:

Question for you probability types: If you take a -5 on your checks (effectively increasing your DC by 5), but you have to only make 50% of the checks in question, do you have a greater probability of succeeding given a starting DC 20 dungeon wall?

Essentially rerolling every failure, but with a -5 on both rolls?

Not enough information to answer. It depends on your Climb bonus as well as the base DC.

For example, if I had a Climb skill of 15, then I couldn't fall even on a 1 normally, but would fall if I rolled 5 or less twice.

If I had a climb of 14, then I'd only fall on a 1. 5% per roll.
Or I could fall on 2 6s. So 6/20 *6/20 = 9%. Still worse.

I take that back. I think it's always worse.

Climb skill 10 = Fall on a 5. 25% chance.
or fall on 2 10s = 10/20 *10/20. Also a 25% chance

Climb skill 5 = Fall on a 10 50% chance
or fall on 2 15s = 15/20*15/20 56%

Beyond that you can't climb.

Alternately, if you meant just half the total number of rolls - ie you can climb twice as fast, you're still screwed.

If it would have take 10 rolls with a climb of 14 = .95^10 = 60%, then it would take 5 rolls needing a 7 to not fall - .7^5 = 17%

Haha! Ninjaed. :-)

The Exchange

I lean toward the more lenient ruling (namely, taking 10 is fine). I admit that realistically, there ought to be a bit of risk, but let's not forget our games rely on drama even more than they do plausibility. Falling for dramatic reasons - the Iron Manticore used Awesome Blow, or Darth Vader offered you the vice-presidency of the galaxy, or whatever - is one thing, but nobody wants their character to spatter his brains at the bottom of a perfectly ordinary wall simply because the dice were cold. Even killer gamemasters only count a player-death like that as 'one skull out of ten'. So, by all means, let your players take ten.

Scarab Sages

Jeff Merola wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

What purpose does this FAQ even serve? You can't Take 10 on attribute checks anyway. Taking 10 is only for skills.

Why make a FAQ explaining why Taking 10 on an attribute check doesn't work in the first place? Much less make one that doesn't entirely consist of the words "No. You cannot Take 10 on attribute checks."?

CRB, page 86 wrote:
Ability Checks and Caster Level Checks: The normal take 10 and take 20 rules apply for ability checks. Neither rule applies to concentration checks or caster level checks.

Can I take 10 on initiative checks?

For the main issue, Quintain, if there is a slightly slippery surface that spans three miles, are you going to force the paladin in full plate to make almost 800 Acrobatics checks, even if there is the possibility of succeeding by simply taking 10?


Cao Phen wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

What purpose does this FAQ even serve? You can't Take 10 on attribute checks anyway. Taking 10 is only for skills.

Why make a FAQ explaining why Taking 10 on an attribute check doesn't work in the first place? Much less make one that doesn't entirely consist of the words "No. You cannot Take 10 on attribute checks."?

CRB, page 86 wrote:
Ability Checks and Caster Level Checks: The normal take 10 and take 20 rules apply for ability checks. Neither rule applies to concentration checks or caster level checks.
Can I take 10 on initiative checks?

Nope. You're distracted because you're entering combat. (I know you know this but I figured someone should answer it before it's taken as Gospel that you can for some reason.)

@Quintain: Not every character invests in Climb. Just look at the builds used on the boards or even just look at the iconics.

The whole point of taking 10 is to hand wave away the danger, but only if a roll of 10 is enough to do so. A character with 1 rank, class skill, and Strength of 12 has a +5 to climb. Taking 10 will deal with very easy, easy, average, and tough climbs while a character with the same 12 Strength but no ranks will not be able to handle anything more than an average climb.

That's exactly what's supposed to happen. It's by design. It's meant to reduce the number of die rolls so you can get on with the game and you are still rewarding characters that invest in their skills. If you want to increase the danger, all you have to do is increase the DC or put them in danger. Put the wall they need to climb near a waterfall (+5 DC) or give them a reason to climb faster (-5 penalty to move at half speed) or even put them near a waterfall and they have to climb faster!

I don't know why were talking about 300'+ cliffs. It's just easier/faster to use magic. The highest platform for divers is 30 meters (33 feet). Do you think it's worth it to make the human make 4 climb checks to use the ladder (DC 5 or 10 depending on if it's wet) or a halfling make 6 checks? Even Louie Anderson was able to successfully climb the 23 foot platform 100% of the time (I don't recall him doing the full 30 meters because he was afraid, not unable). He's out of shape, morbidly obese, and certainly no expert climber. He would have had to make 3 checks or he could simply Take 10 and make the DC 5 or 10 check.

Forcing characters to roll all the time slows down game play with little to no payoff.


Quote:


That's exactly what's supposed to happen. It's by design.

Oh, I know it's by design, I am just not a fan of the design.

Quote:


Significantly improves our odds. ... In our example before that had about a 7.5% chance of success, we instead have an 89.9% chance of success. In order to get to a 50% chance of falling, you would need to make 260 checks and climb a nearly 2000 foot wall.

So, for a single point in climb and a single feat our 300' cliff (DC 20 ) isn't so impossible to climb anymore.

But it still has a chance of failure to keep consequences a real part of the game.

The only time (and this is strictly opinion) that Take 10 would be a viable mechanic would be for passive type checks.

Quote:


...nobody wants their character to spatter his brains at the bottom of a perfectly ordinary wall simply because the dice were cold.

Nobody may want it, but as in real life, Murphy's Rule applies.

The funnest games that I have played have all had a realistic world that had one basic rule: you will not always encounter things that you can defeat...that includes monster as well as the environment, plan accordingly.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber

Well, basically, if your idea of fun is forcing players to roll a d20 nearly 100 times (which is what that "fail only on a 1" climber would have to do, on average) to overcome a simple 150' cliff, then you're obviously playing a very different game from the rest of us.

I'd rather spend the time working out ways to overcome a far more interesting challenge; one with multiple possible ways of overcoming it, and which rewards intelligent strategy. There's nothing clever in just rolling the dice until you succeed, with no reasonable alternative plan; everybody knows what to do to climb a wall, and which pieces of equipment will help (should you happen to have brought them along).
That's why the game rules 'trivialize' the challenge by allowing take 10; it's really not a challenge worth wasting game time on.


JohnF wrote:


Well, basically, if your idea of fun is forcing players to roll a d20 nearly 100 times (which is what that "fail only on a 1" climber would have to do, on average) to overcome a simple 150' cliff, then you're obviously playing a very different game from the rest of us.

I'd rather spend the time working out ways to overcome a far more interesting challenge; one with multiple possible ways of overcoming it, and which rewards intelligent strategy. There's nothing clever in just rolling the dice until you succeed, with no reasonable alternative plan; everybody knows what to do to climb a wall, and which pieces of equipment will help (should you happen to have brought them along).
That's why the game rules 'trivialize' the challenge by allowing take 10; it's really not a challenge worth wasting game time on.

Seconded

Scarab Sages

It is like saying that the party is required to make survival checks every minute to prevent themselves from getting lost if they go off the trail. It kind of hinders gameplay, and possibly the enjoyment of the playgroup.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber
Quintain wrote:
So, for a single point in climb and a single feat our 300' cliff (DC 20) isn't so impossible to climb anymore.

A single point in climb doesn't get you to +11 on your climb check, which is what you'd need to have in order to get to something like that 27.5% chance of succeeding at a string of DC 20 checks when taking the higher of two rolls.


Quote:


I'd rather spend the time working out ways to overcome a far more interesting challenge; one with multiple possible ways of overcoming it, and which rewards intelligent strategy. There's nothing clever in just rolling the dice until you succeed, with no reasonable alternative plan; everybody knows what to do to climb a wall, and which pieces of equipment will help (should you happen to have brought them along).
That's why the game rules 'trivialize' the challenge by allowing take 10; it's really not a challenge worth wasting game time on.

Therein lies the problem...and it's all about attitude.

Spock to Kirk: Why are you climbing this cliff
Kirk to Spock: Because it is there.

You don't see it as a challenge to overcome, you see it as a trivial obstacle that prevents you from getting to what you think you want.

We do indeed play two different games.


Quintain wrote:
Quote:


I'd rather spend the time working out ways to overcome a far more interesting challenge; one with multiple possible ways of overcoming it, and which rewards intelligent strategy. There's nothing clever in just rolling the dice until you succeed, with no reasonable alternative plan; everybody knows what to do to climb a wall, and which pieces of equipment will help (should you happen to have brought them along).
That's why the game rules 'trivialize' the challenge by allowing take 10; it's really not a challenge worth wasting game time on.

Therein lies the problem...and it's all about attitude.

Spock to Kirk: Why are you climbing this cliff
Kirk to Spock: Because it is there.

You don't see it as a challenge to overcome, you see it as a trivial obstacle that prevents you from getting to what you think you want.

We do indeed play two different games.

And we see that cliff as a trivial obstacle because IT IS NOT INTERESTING.

That cliff will be interesting only if it's part of another thing. For example, if you are followed by a number of enemies and the cliff is an obstacle preventing you from fleeing easily.

Or if you're attacked by aerial enemies while you are climbing.

And you know what ? That's exactly those kind of situations when you can't take 10. Because those checks becomes interesting by having an impact on the narration of the combat.

And that's the same for acrobatics, swimming, perception to find traps, disable device checks, ...

However, I will admit that such cliff could be a challenge for a group without a climber or easy access to magic to climb. And guess what ? The rules says so too !


Quintain wrote:
Quote:


I'd rather spend the time working out ways to overcome a far more interesting challenge; one with multiple possible ways of overcoming it, and which rewards intelligent strategy. There's nothing clever in just rolling the dice until you succeed, with no reasonable alternative plan; everybody knows what to do to climb a wall, and which pieces of equipment will help (should you happen to have brought them along).
That's why the game rules 'trivialize' the challenge by allowing take 10; it's really not a challenge worth wasting game time on.

Therein lies the problem...and it's all about attitude.

Spock to Kirk: Why are you climbing this cliff
Kirk to Spock: Because it is there.

You don't see it as a challenge to overcome, you see it as a trivial obstacle that prevents you from getting to what you think you want.

We do indeed play two different games.

No. Read the post you're responding to. It's not interesting because it's mechanically simple. It's just rolling a bunch of dice with no decisions to make. That's exactly the kind of challenge that's should be trivialized - because it's boring.

Actual rockclimbing isn't trivial. You could, in theory, make a set of interesting climbing mechanics that broke the process down, gave you different actions you could take and different decision points. I don't think any RPGs have done so.


You could make the cliff challenging by imposing house rules and making the player roll a dice (probably lots of times), or you could make the cliff challenging by having giant centipedes attack the party when they're half way up. The latter situation is a lot easier to make exciting.


You could also actually describe the climb and give the character decision point to change his path, instead of giving him one decision of go or no go.

Its up to you to make your game environment interesting or not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is not a rules question, and it hasn't been for a long time. Make a general discussion/Advice/Homebrew topic if you want to make climbing an interesting part of PF.


Quintain wrote:

You could also actually describe the climb and give the character decision point to change his path, instead of giving him one decision of go or no go.

Its up to you to make your game environment interesting or not.

But the climbing is not interesting by itself.

It doesn't matter if you decided that you could choose between two paths (one easier and one harder), or if the cliff is 30ft tall of 3000ft tall.

The only thing that matters is that climbing is not interesting.

In order to make it interesting (=> putting an interest in the narration aspect and/or the combat aspect), you have to either make it interesting during the narration or include several enemies that will attack during the climbing.

But it's the same for swimming for example : swimming through an underwater tunnel is not interesting. It's the kind of things you should just tell in one or two sentences and be done with it.
However, when this underwater tunnel is the emergency exit for the group (being outnumbered by their enemies), or when aquatic enemies attacks the PC during the swimming, then you are making things interesting (risk of drowning, penalties, asymetric combat, ...).

To sum up : an environment is not interesting, it's what you do inside that matters.
I should add that I have the same opinion when I am a player as when I am DMing.


Quote:


To sum up : an environment is not interesting, it's what you do inside that matters.

Maybe you should just teleport to all your encounters.


Quintain wrote:


Its up to you to make your game environment interesting or not.

The game environment is never interesting.

What you do in the game environment may be interesting, especially if you do interesting things in it.

Rolling dice, however, is rarely an interesting thing to do, in any environment. What may become interesting is what the dice represent..... but again, pointless, useless, and embarrassing failure is not especially interesting.


Quintain wrote:
Quote:


To sum up : an environment is not interesting, it's what you do inside that matters.
Maybe you should just teleport to all your encounters.

In preference to pointless and time-wasting dice rolling? Absolutely, we should.

Perhaps you should consider what it means that the adventure you describe is widely considered to be even less fun than teleporting between encounters. What does that say about the fun level in your game?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Perhaps you should consider what it means that the adventure you describe is widely considered to be even less fun than teleporting between encounters. What does that say about the fun level in your game?

That's not really fair here.

He is obviously having fun his way, and his players too. Let's just say that it is not our way of playing Pathfinder.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Quintain wrote:


Quote:


Significantly improves our odds. ... In our example before that had about a 7.5% chance of success, we instead have an 89.9% chance of success. In order to get to a 50% chance of falling, you would need to make 260 checks and climb a nearly 2000 foot wall.

So, for a single point in climb and a single feat our 300' cliff (DC 20 ) isn't so impossible to climb anymore.

That's not for a single point in climb. That's for a +14 to climb and a feat. At low levels that bonus to climb is a significant investment and a feat is always important.


Berinor wrote:
Quintain wrote:


Quote:


Significantly improves our odds. ... In our example before that had about a 7.5% chance of success, we instead have an 89.9% chance of success. In order to get to a 50% chance of falling, you would need to make 260 checks and climb a nearly 2000 foot wall.

So, for a single point in climb and a single feat our 300' cliff (DC 20 ) isn't so impossible to climb anymore.

That's not for a single point in climb. That's for a +14 to climb and a feat. At low levels that bonus to climb is a significant investment and a feat is always important.

And at high levels climb becomes less useful. Because there are more magical ways to bypass such obstacles.

It's one thing not to want to use the wizard's one levitate to get past the 300' cliff, but if he's got Overland Flight up already?
Or the witch can just use her fly hex?

But you're still stuck having wasted a feat. (retraining aside.)


"Just as you're nearing the cave, you find a perilous overhang blocking your way up. It's harder to climb than the relatively simple rocky slope you've been following so far, and your regular effort isn't quite enough to get past it. (Taking 10 isn't enough, but it doesn't fail by enough to make you fall.) You could try to make a heroic effort to get over it and risk falling, or you could search around for an alternative route, though you might become fatigued if you have to keep going much longer."

That's the kind of thing that could happen within the rules.


Quintain, I'm curious why you see a monetary investment in climbing gear reasonable but not an investment of skill points? Many classes only get 2 skill points per level. Putting a single point is 50% of their class skill point resources. Shouldn't they benefit from it?


Quote:


That's not for a single point in climb. That's for a +14 to climb and a feat. At low levels that bonus to climb is a significant investment and a feat is always important.

The reference was in regard to the requirements for the feat. Not the overall effort.

Quote:


"Just as you're nearing the cave, you find a perilous overhang blocking your way up. It's harder to climb than the relatively simple rocky slope you've been following so far, and your regular effort isn't quite enough to get past it. (Taking 10 isn't enough, but it doesn't fail by enough to make you fall.) You could try to make a heroic effort to get over it and risk falling, or you could search around for an alternative route, though you might become fatigued if you have to keep going much longer."

That's the kind of thing that could happen within the rules.

Yep. But this could be done for the entire climb. Taking 10 is like hand waving the entire dungeon until you get to the BBEG.

Quote:


Quintain, I'm curious why you see a monetary investment in climbing gear reasonable but not an investment of skill points? Many classes only get 2 skill points per level. Putting a single point is 50% of their class skill point resources. Shouldn't they benefit from it?

I have never stated that an investment in skill points isn't reasonable. What I don't find reasonable is a static skill check for active actions.

And if you have a class that has only 2 skill points, you'll definitely want to prioritize your investments. Climbing gear is something everyone can get for close to nothing.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Quintain wrote:
Yep. But this could be done for the entire climb. Taking 10 is like hand waving the entire dungeon until you get to the BBEG.

No, it's like handwaving the lone kobold guard.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Quintain wrote:
Yep. But this could be done for the entire climb. Taking 10 is like hand waving the entire dungeon until you get to the BBEG.
No, it's like handwaving the lone kobold guard.

When that kobold guard could potentially kill you, sure.

I'm glad we agree.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Quintain wrote:
I'm glad we agree.

Keep dreaming buddy.


Quintain wrote:
Quote:

"Just as you're nearing the cave, you find a perilous overhang blocking your way up. It's harder to climb than the relatively simple rocky slope you've been following so far, and your regular effort isn't quite enough to get past it. (Taking 10 isn't enough, but it doesn't fail by enough to make you fall.) You could try to make a heroic effort to get over it and risk falling, or you could search around for an alternative route, though you might become fatigued if you have to keep going much longer."

That's the kind of thing that could happen within the rules.

Yep. But this could be done for the entire climb. Taking 10 is like hand waving the entire dungeon until you get to the BBEG.

It could be. As I suggested above, it would be possible to make a fun to play climbing sub-game for an RPG.

But if you stick with something closer to the PF rules, you're going to have trouble keeping it both interesting and not too deadly. Doing something like that example too many times either puts us back in the Roll so many times you're near guaranteed to fall or pushing the character to fatigue (and then what - Still good enough to not have to roll looking for an easier route? Do they reach exhausted if they keep going?)

Adding a method to recover from the falling roll helps more than anything else. You're going to have to be using it a lot to make it worth taking a feat in it though.


Quintain wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Quintain wrote:
Yep. But this could be done for the entire climb. Taking 10 is like hand waving the entire dungeon until you get to the BBEG.
No, it's like handwaving the lone kobold guard.

When that kobold guard could potentially kill you, sure.

I'm glad we agree.

If the party is level 5 and the kobold is straight out of the Bestiary, it's better to just handwave it away. Sure, the kobold could get lucky especially if using optional rules, but the risk is so minimal that it's better to just say that it's dead and not waste time and resources. The kobold should not have been placed as an obstacle. It should serve some other story purpose.

What do you do if the characters can all make their checks if they roll a 1 on their Climb check? Do you still have them spend time rolling? Do you not use Take 10 for other skills either?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I need to make a mass of skill checks, for what should be a single check. My investments in said skill, are meaningless.

I put a fistful of d20 dice into a tumbler, noting by color, their order.

Roll them onto the table.

...or, I have so much invested, I can't fail, but I need to sit by, and watch my fellow player roll a mass of dice, basically expecting him to fail, but we forced to wait nonetheless.

The Wizard just casts a spell, and succeeds.

SO INTERESTING!

Sovereign Court

Quintain wrote:
Quote:


Why would I take craft magic item feats if I can fail a basic roll and waste tens of thousands of gold on an item my character should in theory have no problem creating?

Why would you try anything where you have any chance of failing...is basically your question. Or are you only willing to risk failure when it's really important to you.

I applaud you my friend, this is an epic troll. 8 pages and rolling.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Quintain, et al.:

I'm flagging this thread to be moved to the General Discussion forum or the House Rules forum, for the sake of all the poor players seeing this at the top of the forum and thinking there is actually some rules question involved here.

The OP asked a rules question in the Rules Forum for a PFS organized play game. House rules, individual GM preferences, and philosophical discussions are completely irrelevant in answering the rules question and actively harmful when responding in the context of PFS.

Please, please take this discussion to another forum! Move it, start another thread, whatever--just take it somewhere else. If you continue this discussion in the rules forum under the OP's question about PFS, you're potentially causing all sorts of confusion by making people believe there is actually a question about the rule.

To any PFS GMs or players who land here looking for an answer to the posted question:
Yes, you absolutely can take 10 on climb checks unless you are in combat or otherwise distracted by some external factor. The danger of failing a skill check by itself is not a significant enough distraction to prevent taking 10.

There is no question about this rule.The RAW is clear. The RAI is clear. There is even a trait that references taking 10 when climbing and comments from a developer specifically saying that this is the case.


Quintain wrote:
Saldiven wrote:

Gaming at Quintain's table sounds irredeemably tedious if he expects people to make checks like this. If he expected my character to make 20 checks to climb something he could take-10 on, I'd never come back to another session. All the required dice rolling is a boring waste of time for the party as a whole.

I wonder how many other people posting in this thread would come back?

I guess challenges are too much for you unless you have the instant gratification of taking down the BBEG.

For me, the fun is in the journey, not the destination.

Oh great, another "He does not like having fun or being challenged in the same manner that I do, so I will insult him" post.

There are several ways to challenge people. He does not like your method of doing so. It does not mean he does not enjoy challenges.

I don't know which fallacy that is, so I will go with the default "strawman". :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm wondering about the point of this too.

If he wants to be a bad DM that's his prerogative. He can make his players roll all day long and if that makes them happy so be it. I know I'd leave after the first 10 minutes of consecutively rolling dice with nothing actually happening and most players would. That's his punishment for being absurd and trying to make the players fail.
The truth is, the system isn't nearly nuanced enough to represent thing like climbing and that's exactly how it should be. It isn't f!@@ing climbing simulator, that one obstacle is a tiny portion of the game and is given a tiny portion of the rules, the player's resources, the player's time ect. because that's how we get to the exciting stuff, its part of the narrative and makes the world a bit more interesting, but only a little bit, because it makes it less flat. Not everything that exists has to be the bbeg, not every obstacle is the pinnacle of challenge because that would also be boring. Part of the game, part of the narrative that it makes up, is how how much your characters have done and how much they can do. It's the sense of accomplishment that you get from a hard days work, read that again, a hard day's work. It isn't one challenge and then oh, we used up all our resources better go to sleep, one more challenge, oh we'd better sleep again. Each little thing is part of the adventure but that adventure is made up of hundreds if not thousands of little parts and most of them are just that, little. If he's such a bad story teller that he can't think of any way to create a challenge at all except to make the players roll more skill checks (repeatedly, on the same event) then nothing any one else will say can change that.

TLDR: If he wants his players to each sit in their respective corners rolling D20s for 2 hours then that's his choice. It's one that will make him lose all his players but its still not one we can make for him.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

As this is not a rules question, since the OP has admitted he knows what the rule is, but a discussion on how he likes to run the game I suggest this be moved to general discussion or the houserule area.

<proceeds to flag his own post>

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quintain wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Quintain wrote:
Yep. But this could be done for the entire climb. Taking 10 is like hand waving the entire dungeon until you get to the BBEG.
No, it's like handwaving the lone kobold guard.

When that kobold guard could potentially kill you, sure.

I'm glad we agree.

Same thing with that house centepede, or the CR 1/8 bat. We don't care if you are level 15, that Fox can still kill you. Roll initiative.

Ok you killed the Fox, there is a hawk flying around. Roll initiative.

Ok you killed the hawk. There is a tiny beetle climbing on your leg. Roll initiative.

351 to 400 of 405 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can you take 10 on climb? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.